Show JOHN BECKS LIFE POLICY Agent Who Procured Hm Him Ent ted tied to Ills His Commission In Ful Full HUlU COUl SO II Iii Case 1 or Hea s litton Cun II I it I IThE ThE Supreme Court down an tocla In the saes ot of W J bleed l 5 1 the Itle Union I ot of it at Ut ti Judgment of tb he trill court courtIn to In J December 11 the Ic this nUon bee became the or at tile the defend a ht he WILl wU to can for tor tor tu the and waste receive is III corn com comI I for l his a u won un the Ibe which hall be paid lit III cash to 10 senti received by the oo Lii all policies of insurance toted w with the by Ut ur t the 01 plaintiff While niL act tog 1111 un under Jor his contract Bead procured un all from John r In I upon hi life Lii III the sum aum Of O and a policy polley was Issued UllOn upon this applIcatIon to Ir dr Deck Ikek The ley was wall dated August t 2 1157 1111 and anel reo re I In force to 13 11 lIST I first annual w was I fir tor whIch Deck Beck gaVe three promIssory notes nute AI follows Two due It 19 1557 whick wu Was paid I 2000 due 19 lIST and I due January it 11 1198 1053 After the policy Olley had been Issued the of at the eom company II received In Information formation that led them to be behove hove that the rIsK was not II a good one Becoming R ot of these reports the corn com patty sent lint lIan WaiStS ItS Ita weStern tern agent to Salt Sll Lake to Investigate and whether or not the risk was a adf ai i df desirable one Ir Vatere learned that Sr sir Beck k wa wee suffering from I disease and aDd Insisted thAt a 0 I wa necessary Mr Ir fleck Deck refused tO h submit to another fei the surrender ot of the polly policy and cancellation of the unpaid were commenced terminating by Mr Ir Deck agreeing to accept noo and antt the surrender ot of the policy to the corn oom tany rany for tor cancellation and the company a agreeing to return to Mr Deck th the two nol notes The plaintiff thin then brought suit to re over Ovet hi hIs commissIons In full am In alt to 18 ot of whIch only had ha b been n paid took no active part In theN the nl ne but offered no objection to the surrender ot of the policy and ana notes At the trial ho he testified that he did not nol kno know that lIe had haa any Rny right to his hla on the unpaid notes not until h he hd had l C consulted hl his attorneys I tr fley Street lie He never neu hi his right to the commissIon he said and felt he hea was a entitled to It The reason realOn lie he eald ald nothing to hIs hie company about It wu was bau Wa Waters re told hint him leaving talt Lake that It Will Wil hard on him himI I lifted Hd and nd that he Waters would take the matter Uti un with the company und nd Bee what whal he get It t to do 1 After this the company compan wrote need bleed stating It wOUld not charge him the 1100 advanced to him and would give him all an and UI 11 per cent additIonal commissIon for tor ru future t u 1 business uBI nelll Mr lr Ut he obtained the he surrender lurrender ot of the policy because e he Will was convinced upon investigation that thE risk w was undesIrable that Beck uck was In fInancIal which Involved n I mural moral hazard which hi company did I not care to aume remaIned In the defendant employ ploy nine fter aher the neck Beck transaction nd dl business on a sixty per cent basis instead ut of per nt The CUt case w was tried triad before Judge JUdi and a 1 Jury last November tile the acting under UDder th the InstructIons ot of i ihl the hl court In favor of ef i irr rr fr The defendant i error In the ot of tel tea limon and In III the charge ij the jury and of the court i The question considered by the Supreme court ourt Is II whether tb the defend defendant ant after going so 10 far u as It did could J the policy polley from lr eck and surrender the tha notes without proof ot of fraud thus thul d dc Heed ot of hi commissIon hay hayIng Ing accepted the be not notes a legal olt oIa as the defendant and nd the court end rested ted upon the to collect I t the notes notel when hea heathe the they became du dui and nd pay t te e agreed reed This obligation pays the court cannot lie be avoided under the con contract tract by the claim that the company I j I learned that the risk wu was undesirable or that It understood that hd had been refused Insurance In InI company It might forfeit the I policy for fraud In procuring It for tor mis mi In the application or for tor forI I of the not notes but this 1 cou course warn not attempted On the eon con contrary the company the bind bindIng I log Ing tOILe force and legality of the policy by paying In cash tuh and surrendering the nut not yet et due In order to rights therein and relieve Itself liability The matter ot of Mr r alleged In the court was waa properly I r by br the trial court It R a RI that should hould have been I After Arter a further review vIew ot of the cue t the I urt ourt linda finda no sever r cad at the jud judgment ent ot of the court below The Th opinion was by Juett Justice I Miner Justice I 1 hief Justice blanch Couple Emma me filed B a dIvorce suit J 1 M In th the Third I district I court Ourt today alleging that the ani took plad plabe In this city on 4 4 d that In the year ear 1 deserted ant and 11 sInce Inet to tor tows hr r support There are no children lI II Delhi III plaintiffs II attorney CA Case U Is Ar Argued This afternoon lId tI before In r f Utah TItle insurance oi Trust m n ny ot of tile the HlAt ct W V decel deceased VI SUm Stan rn H Wilner the suit Is II to recover I shares hll ct cit tb lb stock 0 of the th Tu ra Mining company or the sum tum ot of otI I w 0 It Its alleged value I |